The purpose of this study was to determine interexaminer reproducibility of two modified Winkel tongue coating indices and to study the relationship between each of these two indices and the amount of tongue coating as determined by wet weight of scrapings from the dorsum of the tongue. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five participants were selected for the study from among dental students. The selection was made to assure that a wide range of degrees of tongue coating were represented. Two independent examiners scored the tongue coatings using the two modified Winkel tongue coating indices (mWTCI 1 + 2 and mWTCI 2). After completion of index recordings, tongue scrapings were performed by one of the examiners. RESULTS: Inter-examiner reproducibility of mWTCI 1 + 2 and mWTCI 2 using Pearson?s coefficients of correlation amounted to r ¼ 0.48 and 0.93 respectively. Overall, mWTCI 2 showed higher correlations to wet weight of tongue scrapings than mWTCI 1 + 2. CONCLUSION: The mWTCI 2 was found to be highly reproducible and also valid as related to wet weight of tongue scrapings. This index would seem suitable for further studies on tongue coatings; effect of tongue cleaning; and rate of reformation of coatings after cleaning.

. "Evaluation of Tongue Coating Indices." Oral Diseases . (): -. (*)

Abstract
Aim: The purpose of this study was to determine inter examiner reproducibility of 2 modified Winkel tongue coating indices and to study the relationship between each of these 2 indices and amount of tongue coating as determined by wet weight of scrapings from the dorsum of the tongue.
Materials and Methods: 25 participants were selected for the study from among dental stu-dents. The selection was made to assure that wide ranges of degrees of tongue coating were rep-reŽsented. Two independent examiners scored the tongue coatings using the 2 modified Winkel indices (W 1+2 and m W). After completion of index recordings, tongue scrapings were per-formed by 1 of the examiners.
Results: Inter examiner reproducibility of W 1+2 and mW indices using Pearson's coefficients of correlation amounted to r = 0.48 and 0.93 respectively. Overall, mW index showed higher cor-relations to wet weight of tongue scrapings than W1+2 index.
Conclusion: The mW index was found to be highly reproducible and quite valid as related to wet weight of tongue scrapings. This index would seem suitable for further studies on tongue coatings; effect of tongue cleaning; and rate of reformation of coatings after cleaning.

A. MOBILIA, G. ERICKSON, V. DROUIN, J. MERCER, and S. SEVILLA PEREZ, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA Objective: The objective of this study was to determine whether or not the toothpick and/or interdental brush are equal in effectiveness to floss in removing supragingival interproximal plaque when patient compliance and device ease of use, as experimental variables, were removed. Methods: Male and female student healthcare volunteers from Loma Linda University 20-35 years of age of any ethnicity in general normal health and general good oral health participated with interdental papillae filling the embrasures were included in the study. All subjects were given a standardized full mouth prophylaxis and were instructed to abstain from interproximal hygiene for two weeks. After two weeks of plaque accumulation, interproximal plaque was removed using floss, interproximal brush and the toothpick in their designated quadrants. Using Turesky''''''''s modification of Quigley and Hein, plaque scores were recorded before and after interproximal plaque removal. The difference between the two plaque scores was analyzed and the effectiveness of the devices was compared. Results: Data was analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis rank test and Mann-Whitney U test at the significance level of a= 0.05. Our results indicate that toothpick is significantly less effective in removing plaque than floss and interproximal brush (p<0.0001 and p=0.001 respectively). There was no significant difference in plaque removal between toothpick and control (p=0.051). And finally, there is no significant difference in plaque removal between floss and interproximal brush (p=0.957). Conclusion: Since they are equally effective in plaque removal, interproximal brush is an alternative to floss when the patient dexterity or wiliness to use the floss is compromised. When papillae fill the interproximal space, toothpick is not very effective and floss or interproximal brush should be advised.